我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum部分种分类及芒果胶孢炭疽菌生物学特性研究
|
摘要
炭疽菌是一类地理分布广泛、寄主范围广泛的真菌，从单子叶植物到双子叶植物,从裸子植物到被子植物均有炭疽病害。炭疽菌在作物成熟前和成熟后都能侵染植株和果实，特别对成熟的热带作物危害极大，造成果实腐烂引起严重的经济损失并影响产品的出口质量，因此在植物病原真菌中占有较重要的地位。本文回顾了炭疽菌属Colletotrichum Corda的分类学研究历史，对炭疽菌属名称的演变进行了阐述，并对以Saccardo (1882-1921)为代表的传统分类系统，以及Arx (1957,1970)和Sutton(1980)提出的炭疽菌近代分类系统作了评价；同时芒果胶孢炭疽菌进行了生物学特性研究。获得的主要结果如下：
1.以Arx和Sutton的现代分类系统为基础，坚持自然形态学为主，培养特征和寄主范围为辅，对本实验室保存的炭疽菌标本以及国内有关单位的标本400余份和作者近期所采标本70余份进行了研究，共鉴定出46个合格种及变种。其中：新种4个，分别为艾纳香盘长Gloeosporium blumeae，楠木生盘长孢Gloeosporium machilicola，西番莲生盘长孢Gloeosporium passigloricolum，葛藤炭疽菌Colletotrichum stephaniae；新组合和新种1个，扁平炭疽菌（Colletotrichum complanatum）；新纪录种12个，分别为山柑盘长孢Gloeosporium capparidis，树薯生炭疽菌Colletotrichum manihoticola，胡椒炭疽菌Colletotrichum piperis，悬钩子生炭疽菌Colletotrichum rubicola，点状黑盘孢Melanconium stictoides，可可盘长孢Gloeosporium theobromicolum，莛子藨柱盘孢Cylindrosporium triostei，矮小盘长孢Gloeosporium nanoti，秋海棠盘长孢Gloeosporiumbegoniae，落地生根盘长孢Gloeosporium bryophylli，樟盘长孢Gloeosporiumcinnamomi，地榆盘长孢Gloeosporium sanguisorbae；大陆新分布3个：蝴蝶兰炭疽菌Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis，蜀葵炭疽菌Colletotrichum althaeae，铁刀木盘长孢Gloeosporium cassiae～siameae。对这些种进行了描述，给予绘图及部分照片，并给出了这些种的检索表。
2.对云南省6个地区13个芒果品种上分离的18个芒果炭疽菌株进行了致病性测定及对其培养性状进行了观察记录，筛选出了具有代表性的强致病性菌株；以强致病性菌株CG16接种三年芒，通过光学显微镜、扫描电子显微镜和透射电子显微镜对炭疽菌侵染芒果果实和叶片的过程、受炭疽菌侵染后寄主的组织病理学及施药后药剂对炭疽菌菌丝影响的超微结构进行了研究，采用分光光度计法测定了病菌侵入过程中受害果实的过氧化物酶（POD）、苯丙氨酸解氨酶（PAL）和多酚氧化酶（PPO）活性。
研究结果表明，18个菌株的培养性状均存在明显差异，强致病菌株的菌丝颜色浅，稀薄，菌丝附着力强，在PDA培养基上产孢早，产孢量大；弱致病菌株的菌丝较致密，颜色多半较深，产孢晚，孢子量少。以强致病性菌株CG16接种芒果的过程表明，从接种芒果至出现症状需要1.5d左右。炭疽菌在侵染芒果的过程中，首先形成初期侵染菌丝（初生菌丝），随着初生菌丝的侵入和扩展，寄主细胞逐渐消解死亡，初生菌丝先在细胞间扩展，不断建立新的活体营养寄生关系。随着菌丝的侵入使寄主细胞最终坏死消解，后期在死亡的寄主细胞中扩展的菌丝逐渐变细、分枝增多（次生菌丝），次生菌丝在寄主体内大量繁殖扩展，分散或成菌丝束。在初生菌丝穿透寄主细胞壁的过程中形成一个漏斗状的菌丝锥，在与细胞壁接触的菌丝部位缢缩，常常形成1个隔膜,在穿过细胞壁后迅速膨大成正常菌丝。在病菌侵染的过程中，寄主组织和细胞发生了一系列病理变化，包括寄主细胞变形，细胞壁的变薄、畸形、部分消失，原生质体解体，叶绿体等细胞器的崩解、坏死，细胞死亡。药剂处理对炭疽菌菌丝的影响比较明显，施药后的菌丝细胞壁不规则加厚，细胞部分解体，细胞内大量物质外渗累积。在接近和接触菌丝的寄主细胞壁处，积累大量颜色较深的物质。
在炭疽菌侵染芒果果实的过程中，接种果实的果皮中的POD、PPO、PAL活性均比健康果皮的高，说明炭疽菌的侵染过程中引起寄主的抗性反应与这三种物质有关。接种后随着接种天数的增加，酶活性也升高，接种CG16后三种酶活性的变化均比接种CG8后的变化明显，即致病力强的菌株诱导芒果果实内酶产生的能力比致病力弱的菌株强,产生的活性氧自由基也多，使寄主致病更快。CG16接种后第5d，POD的活性达到高峰，随后，随着寄主组织的崩解，抵抗病菌的能力下降，POD的活性也随之下降，PPO的活性变化趋势与POD基本一致。CG16接种后第3d开始，PAL活性达到最高值，随后显著下降。CG8接种后的酶活性变化与CG16比有一定的迟滞期，即接种后酶增长较缓慢，高峰期推迟，下降也较缓慢。
Colletotrichum Corda had a widely geographical distribution and hosts. It caused seriousdiseases on different plants, especially for tropical crops. Therefore, it had very importantposition among phytopathogenic fungi. In this study, we retrospected research history of thetaxonomy of Colletotrichum Corda and expatiated on the evolvement of ColletotrichumCorda’s appellation, and also appraised traditional classifical system which represented bySaccardo (1882-1921) and neoteric classifical system that brought forward by Arx(1957,1970)&Sutton (1980), respectively. In addition, we also performed characterization ofbiology of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. in Mango.
1. Based on Von Arx&Sutton’s neoteric classifical system and the principle for naturialmorphology, and accompanied with host range, we studied more than400genusColletotrichum specimens that preserved in our lab and other related departments in Chinaincluding70genus collected recently. In total46species and form sp. are recognized andidentifed in this study. Among them, there are4new species: Gloeosporium blumeae，Gloeosporium machilicola， Gloeosporium passigloricolum， Colletotrichum stephaniae；one new species: Colletotrichum complanatum；12firstly discovered specie:Gloeosporium capparidis， Colletotrichum manihoticola， Colletotrichum piperis，Colletotrichum rubicola， Melanconium stictoides, Gloeosporium theobromicolum,Cylindrosporium triostei, Gloeosporium nanoti，Gloeosporium begoniae，Gloeosporiumbryophylli，Gloeosporium cinnamomi，Gloeosporium sanguisorbae；3mainland newlydistribution: Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis, Colletotrichum althaeae, Gloeosporium cassiaesiameae. A detail description for all species, drawings and some pictures were given in thetext. In addition, we offered a key of these species.
2. Eighteen isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. were collected fromthirteen mango varieties of six places in Ynnan province. The cultivation character andpathogenetic comparisons of these isolates were observed and recorded. The representativestrong pathogenic strains were selected which offered materials for study of infection processand enzyme activity. Sannian mango were inoculated by strong pathogenic isolate. Theultrastructure of infection process of C. gloeosporioides on leaf and fruit, host pathology in infection process and fungi cell change after treatment of fungicide were observed by lightmicroscopy and election microscopy. In addition, the activity of peroxidase (POD),phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL), and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) of mango fruit weredetected by spectrophotometer in infection process of C. gloeosporioides. The resultsindicated that the cultivation character of eighteen isolates of C. gloeosporioides is different.The pathogen with stronger pathogenicity has light color, thin and strong adhesive hyphae,and produced plentiful spores early. The pathogen with weaker pathogenicity has dense andheavy color hyphae, and produced few spores late. CG16was screened as strong pathogenicstrains. It needs one and half days from inoculation to symptom. After inoculation, primaryand secondary hyphae were found in infected tissue. Primary haphae extended between hostcells, host cells collapsed because of pathogen infecting. Second hyphae extended quickly andpropagated with dispersion or bundle. Hyphae first formed a funnel-shaped hyphal cone andproduced a septum near host cell wall in infection process, there was a striction near the hostcell wall, primary hyphae became swollen normal hyphae after penetrating host cell wall.During infection process, pathological change happened. The host cell wall became deformedand thin because of hyphal invasion, cellular protoplasm of host cells became disorganized,chloroplast in the infected host tissue disintegrated, chloroplast envelope was distorted anddisorganized partly. The effect of fungicide on pathogen is obvious. The fungi cell wallbecame thick, and organelle was disorganized, hyphae was dying. There was much hyphaeetravasation between hyphae and host after treatment.
During the pathogen infecting process, the activities of POD, PPO and PAL in infectedmango pericarp were higher than health mango pericarp. It was indicated that POD, PPO, andPAL were involved in the occurrence of indeced resistance. Enzyme activities increased withinoculation days, the change of three kinds of enzymes activities inoculatecd by CG16ismore evident than that inoculated by CG8. It meant that the pathogen with strongerpothogenicity could induce mango fruit produced more enzyme than that less pathogenicity.Five days after inoculation by CG16, the POD activities were the highest, and then, resistanceability declined with disorganization of host cells, the change of POD activity fell, the changeof PPO activity was somewhat similar to POD. The activities of PAL were the highest threedays after Mango fruit inoculated by CG16, and then fell sharply. The change of enzymeactivities of mango inoculated by CG8was delayed compared with CG16, that is enzymeincreased slowly, peak hours pushed off, and fell off slowly after inoculation.
1.以Arx和Sutton的现代分类系统为基础，坚持自然形态学为主，培养特征和寄主范围为辅，对本实验室保存的炭疽菌标本以及国内有关单位的标本400余份和作者近期所采标本70余份进行了研究，共鉴定出46个合格种及变种。其中：新种4个，分别为艾纳香盘长Gloeosporium blumeae，楠木生盘长孢Gloeosporium machilicola，西番莲生盘长孢Gloeosporium passigloricolum，葛藤炭疽菌Colletotrichum stephaniae；新组合和新种1个，扁平炭疽菌（Colletotrichum complanatum）；新纪录种12个，分别为山柑盘长孢Gloeosporium capparidis，树薯生炭疽菌Colletotrichum manihoticola，胡椒炭疽菌Colletotrichum piperis，悬钩子生炭疽菌Colletotrichum rubicola，点状黑盘孢Melanconium stictoides，可可盘长孢Gloeosporium theobromicolum，莛子藨柱盘孢Cylindrosporium triostei，矮小盘长孢Gloeosporium nanoti，秋海棠盘长孢Gloeosporiumbegoniae，落地生根盘长孢Gloeosporium bryophylli，樟盘长孢Gloeosporiumcinnamomi，地榆盘长孢Gloeosporium sanguisorbae；大陆新分布3个：蝴蝶兰炭疽菌Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis，蜀葵炭疽菌Colletotrichum althaeae，铁刀木盘长孢Gloeosporium cassiae～siameae。对这些种进行了描述，给予绘图及部分照片，并给出了这些种的检索表。
2.对云南省6个地区13个芒果品种上分离的18个芒果炭疽菌株进行了致病性测定及对其培养性状进行了观察记录，筛选出了具有代表性的强致病性菌株；以强致病性菌株CG16接种三年芒，通过光学显微镜、扫描电子显微镜和透射电子显微镜对炭疽菌侵染芒果果实和叶片的过程、受炭疽菌侵染后寄主的组织病理学及施药后药剂对炭疽菌菌丝影响的超微结构进行了研究，采用分光光度计法测定了病菌侵入过程中受害果实的过氧化物酶（POD）、苯丙氨酸解氨酶（PAL）和多酚氧化酶（PPO）活性。
研究结果表明，18个菌株的培养性状均存在明显差异，强致病菌株的菌丝颜色浅，稀薄，菌丝附着力强，在PDA培养基上产孢早，产孢量大；弱致病菌株的菌丝较致密，颜色多半较深，产孢晚，孢子量少。以强致病性菌株CG16接种芒果的过程表明，从接种芒果至出现症状需要1.5d左右。炭疽菌在侵染芒果的过程中，首先形成初期侵染菌丝（初生菌丝），随着初生菌丝的侵入和扩展，寄主细胞逐渐消解死亡，初生菌丝先在细胞间扩展，不断建立新的活体营养寄生关系。随着菌丝的侵入使寄主细胞最终坏死消解，后期在死亡的寄主细胞中扩展的菌丝逐渐变细、分枝增多（次生菌丝），次生菌丝在寄主体内大量繁殖扩展，分散或成菌丝束。在初生菌丝穿透寄主细胞壁的过程中形成一个漏斗状的菌丝锥，在与细胞壁接触的菌丝部位缢缩，常常形成1个隔膜,在穿过细胞壁后迅速膨大成正常菌丝。在病菌侵染的过程中，寄主组织和细胞发生了一系列病理变化，包括寄主细胞变形，细胞壁的变薄、畸形、部分消失，原生质体解体，叶绿体等细胞器的崩解、坏死，细胞死亡。药剂处理对炭疽菌菌丝的影响比较明显，施药后的菌丝细胞壁不规则加厚，细胞部分解体，细胞内大量物质外渗累积。在接近和接触菌丝的寄主细胞壁处，积累大量颜色较深的物质。
在炭疽菌侵染芒果果实的过程中，接种果实的果皮中的POD、PPO、PAL活性均比健康果皮的高，说明炭疽菌的侵染过程中引起寄主的抗性反应与这三种物质有关。接种后随着接种天数的增加，酶活性也升高，接种CG16后三种酶活性的变化均比接种CG8后的变化明显，即致病力强的菌株诱导芒果果实内酶产生的能力比致病力弱的菌株强,产生的活性氧自由基也多，使寄主致病更快。CG16接种后第5d，POD的活性达到高峰，随后，随着寄主组织的崩解，抵抗病菌的能力下降，POD的活性也随之下降，PPO的活性变化趋势与POD基本一致。CG16接种后第3d开始，PAL活性达到最高值，随后显著下降。CG8接种后的酶活性变化与CG16比有一定的迟滞期，即接种后酶增长较缓慢，高峰期推迟，下降也较缓慢。
Colletotrichum Corda had a widely geographical distribution and hosts. It caused seriousdiseases on different plants, especially for tropical crops. Therefore, it had very importantposition among phytopathogenic fungi. In this study, we retrospected research history of thetaxonomy of Colletotrichum Corda and expatiated on the evolvement of ColletotrichumCorda’s appellation, and also appraised traditional classifical system which represented bySaccardo (1882-1921) and neoteric classifical system that brought forward by Arx(1957,1970)&Sutton (1980), respectively. In addition, we also performed characterization ofbiology of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. in Mango.
1. Based on Von Arx&Sutton’s neoteric classifical system and the principle for naturialmorphology, and accompanied with host range, we studied more than400genusColletotrichum specimens that preserved in our lab and other related departments in Chinaincluding70genus collected recently. In total46species and form sp. are recognized andidentifed in this study. Among them, there are4new species: Gloeosporium blumeae，Gloeosporium machilicola， Gloeosporium passigloricolum， Colletotrichum stephaniae；one new species: Colletotrichum complanatum；12firstly discovered specie:Gloeosporium capparidis， Colletotrichum manihoticola， Colletotrichum piperis，Colletotrichum rubicola， Melanconium stictoides, Gloeosporium theobromicolum,Cylindrosporium triostei, Gloeosporium nanoti，Gloeosporium begoniae，Gloeosporiumbryophylli，Gloeosporium cinnamomi，Gloeosporium sanguisorbae；3mainland newlydistribution: Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis, Colletotrichum althaeae, Gloeosporium cassiaesiameae. A detail description for all species, drawings and some pictures were given in thetext. In addition, we offered a key of these species.
2. Eighteen isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. were collected fromthirteen mango varieties of six places in Ynnan province. The cultivation character andpathogenetic comparisons of these isolates were observed and recorded. The representativestrong pathogenic strains were selected which offered materials for study of infection processand enzyme activity. Sannian mango were inoculated by strong pathogenic isolate. Theultrastructure of infection process of C. gloeosporioides on leaf and fruit, host pathology in infection process and fungi cell change after treatment of fungicide were observed by lightmicroscopy and election microscopy. In addition, the activity of peroxidase (POD),phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL), and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) of mango fruit weredetected by spectrophotometer in infection process of C. gloeosporioides. The resultsindicated that the cultivation character of eighteen isolates of C. gloeosporioides is different.The pathogen with stronger pathogenicity has light color, thin and strong adhesive hyphae,and produced plentiful spores early. The pathogen with weaker pathogenicity has dense andheavy color hyphae, and produced few spores late. CG16was screened as strong pathogenicstrains. It needs one and half days from inoculation to symptom. After inoculation, primaryand secondary hyphae were found in infected tissue. Primary haphae extended between hostcells, host cells collapsed because of pathogen infecting. Second hyphae extended quickly andpropagated with dispersion or bundle. Hyphae first formed a funnel-shaped hyphal cone andproduced a septum near host cell wall in infection process, there was a striction near the hostcell wall, primary hyphae became swollen normal hyphae after penetrating host cell wall.During infection process, pathological change happened. The host cell wall became deformedand thin because of hyphal invasion, cellular protoplasm of host cells became disorganized,chloroplast in the infected host tissue disintegrated, chloroplast envelope was distorted anddisorganized partly. The effect of fungicide on pathogen is obvious. The fungi cell wallbecame thick, and organelle was disorganized, hyphae was dying. There was much hyphaeetravasation between hyphae and host after treatment.
During the pathogen infecting process, the activities of POD, PPO and PAL in infectedmango pericarp were higher than health mango pericarp. It was indicated that POD, PPO, andPAL were involved in the occurrence of indeced resistance. Enzyme activities increased withinoculation days, the change of three kinds of enzymes activities inoculatecd by CG16ismore evident than that inoculated by CG8. It meant that the pathogen with strongerpothogenicity could induce mango fruit produced more enzyme than that less pathogenicity.Five days after inoculation by CG16, the POD activities were the highest, and then, resistanceability declined with disorganization of host cells, the change of POD activity fell, the changeof PPO activity was somewhat similar to POD. The activities of PAL were the highest threedays after Mango fruit inoculated by CG16, and then fell sharply. The change of enzymeactivities of mango inoculated by CG8was delayed compared with CG16, that is enzymeincreased slowly, peak hours pushed off, and fell off slowly after inoculation.
引文
[1]刘秀娟.中国热带、亚热带地区炭疽菌主要寄主植物名录[J].热带作物学报,1987,8(2):37-40.
[2]俞章,任国兰,田尧甫,等.几个炭疽菌株的分类鉴定[J].河南农业大学学报,1996,30(2):149-153.
[3]刘仲健.中国兰花观赏与培育及病虫害防治[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1998,250-294.
[4] Jeffries P, Dodd J C, Jeger M J, et al. The biology and control of Colletotrichum species on tropicalfruit crops[J]. Plant Pathology,1990,39:343-366.
[5]戴芳澜.中国真菌总汇[M].北京:科学出版社,1979.1-1529.
[6]张中义.植物病原真菌学[M].成都.四川科技出版社出版.1988,1-517.
[7]杨秀珠.台湾产炭疽菌引致植物炭疽病[D].北海道农业大学农学博士论文.1990,1-90.
[8]蔡云鹏.台湾植物病害名录[M].台湾:中华植物保护学会,中华植物保护学会刊印,1991:1-604.
[9]王也珍,吴声华,周文能,等.台湾真菌名录[M].农业委员会,1999:1-289.
[10]曹文广,刘云龙,张中义.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum部分种的分类研究.云南农业大学硕士论文.2006,1-77.
[11] von Arx J A. Die Arten der Gattung Colletotrichum Corda[J]. Phytopath1957,29:413-468.
[12] von Arx J A. A review of the fungi classified as genus Gloeosporium[J]. Bibliotheca Mycologica,1970,24(3):1-203.
[13] Sutton B C. Fungi Imperfecti with pycnicia, acervuli and stromata[M]. Surrey, England:Commonwealth Mycological Institute.The Coelomycetes.1980:523-537.
[14] Sutton B C. The genus Glomerella and its anamorph Colletotrichum[J]. In: Colletotrichum biology,pathology and control. Eds. Bailey, J. A. and M. J. Jeger. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.1992:1-26.
[15] Kirk P M, Cannon P F, David J C, et al. Dictionary of the Fungi,2001.
[16]王晓鸣,李建义.陕西省炭疽菌的研究[J].真菌学报,1987,6(6):211-218.
[17]吴文平,张志铭.河北省的炭疽菌属[D].河北农业大学硕士论文,1988:1-141.
[18]喻璋.河南省炭疽菌（Colletotrichum Corda.）分类的研究[J].喻璋论文集,2002.
[19]刘晓云,景耀,杨俊秀.植物炭疽研究文献综述[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(4):105-111.
[20]邢来君,李明春.普通真菌学[M].高等教育出版社.1999,270-271.
[21]曾大兴.炭疽菌属几个重要种的分子系统学研究[M].植物病理学报.2002,22（4）:372-373.
[22]曾大兴,戚佩坤,姜子德.2002.应用RAPD技术快速鉴定蔬菜上的弯抱类炭疽菌[J].植物病理学报.32(2):170-174.
[23]张欣.胶胞炭疽菌DNA的PCR特异性扩增[J].热带农业科学.2002,22(2):17-20.
[24] Correll. J.C, D.D.Rhoads, and J.C.Guerber1993. Examination of Mitochondrial DNA RestrictionFragment Length Polymorphism, DNA Fingerprints,and Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA ofColletotrichum orbiculare[J].PHYTOPATHOLOGY.83(11),1199-1204.
[25] Walker. J, A. Nikandrow and G. D. Millar1991. Species of Colletotrichum on Xanthium(Asteraceae) with comments on some taxonomic and nomenclatural problems in Colletotrichum[J],Mycol. Res.95(10):1175-1193.
[26]曹文广,刘云龙,张中义,等.炭疽菌属Colletotrichum Corda的分类研究进展[C].中国食用菌2005,第24卷增刊.118-122.
[27] SIVANESAN. A AND W. H. HSIEH. A new ascomycete,Glomerella septospora sp. nov.and itscoelomycete anamorph, Colletotrichum taiwanense sp. nov. from Taiwan[J]. Mycol. Res.1993,97(12):1523-1529.
[28] Sutton B C. The coelomycetes [M]. CML., Kew. Surrey,1980,523-537.
[29] Simmonds, J. H. A Study of the species of Colletotrichum Causing Ripe Fruit Rots in Queensland[J].Queesland J. aric. Anim. Sci.1965,22:458-459.
[30]王晓鸣,李建义.炭疽菌属的现代分类和陕西省炭疽菌属的种[D].西北农学院硕士论文.1985,1-283.
[31]熊英,梁红艳,余浩光,等.马占相思炭疽菌的鉴定和有关生物学特性的研究[J].中国森林病虫.2003,22(1):5-9.
[32]兰建强,李亮,曾显雄,等.炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种-III中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011,120-122.
[33]曲倩，兰建强,张陶,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）一新组合，一新记录种西南大学学报.2010，32卷增刊115-116
[34]兰建强,曲倩,张陶,等.炭疽菌属一新种中国植物病理学会2010年学术年会论文集2010，137-138
[35]曲倩,兰建强,张陶,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）的分类研究中国植物病理学会2010年学术年会论文集2010，178-181
[36]张陶,张荣,兰建强,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）的分类研究III云南大学学报(自然科学版).2008，28（3）76-80
[37]弓力伟，兰建强,曾显雄,等.盘长孢属Gloeosporium二新种-III中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，102-103
[38]杨海艳，秦芸，张宏,等.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种-I中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，136-137
[39]罗群，曾显雄,张中义,等.盘长孢属Gloeosporium二新种-II中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，108-109
[40]张中义，杨海艳，郑肖兰,等.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，138-139
[41]黄循精,张慧坚.世界芒果的生产、科研及贸易[J].热带作物研究,1995,(1):81-86.
[42]蔡於麒,何和明.芒果生产过程中若干生理参数的变化[J].中国野生植物资源,2000,19(5):56-5.
[43]周至宏,王助引,黄思良,等.香蕉、菠萝、忙果病虫害防治彩色图说[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[44]肖倩纯,余卓桐,郑建华,等.芒果病害种类及其病原菌鉴定[J].热带作物学报,1995,6(1):77-83.
[45]王壁生,丁爱冬,刘朝祯,等.芒果炭疽病防治试验初报[J].广东农业科学,1993,(2):38-41.
[46]冯双庆,陈雨新,吴海宗,等.延缓果实后熟和控制采后病害的发生[J].北京农业大学学报,1997,(4):61.
[47]戴芳澜.中国真菌总汇[M].北京:科技出版社,1979,1-1527.
[48]王小鸣.炭疽菌属(Colletotrichum Cda)的现代分类学和陕西省炭疽属的种[D].西北农学院硕士论文,1985.
[49]黄思良,霍秀娟,韦刚,等.芒果炭疽病菌Colletotrichum gloeosporioides的生物学特性[J].西南农业学报,1999,12(2):83-89.
[50]黄思良,赵艳珠,黄连江,等.不同培养基对芒果炭疽病菌分生孢子形成的影响[J].西南农业学报,1998,11(1):62-68.
[51]岑贞陆,黄思良.芒果炭疽病菌微循环产孢的研究[J].2000,7(3):225-227.
[52]张敬泽,徐同.柿树炭疽菌侵染不同柿树种、品种和部位的细胞学特征[J].菌物学报,2005,24(1):116-122.
[53]肖倩莼,余卓桐.芒果炭疽病流行过程、流行成因分析及施药指标预报研究[J].热带作物学报,1999,20(3):25-30.
[50]蒲金基,王向社,梁活华,等.芒果叶片生化特性与炭疽病发生的关系[J].果树学报，2004,21(5):434-437
[55]蒲金基,刘晓妹,梁活华.芒果叶片对炭疽病的阶段抗性[J].植物保护学报,2004,31(3):247-251.
[56]张宗申,彭新湘,姜子德,等.生物诱抗剂草酸对黄瓜叶片中过氧化物酶的系统诱导作用[J].植物病理学报,1998,28(1):145-150.
[57]柳建良,黄小丹,傅炽栋,等.水杨酸对芒果炭疽病的诱导抗性作用[J].热带亚热带植物学报,1998,6(3):245-248.
[58]晏卫红,黄思良,谢玲,等.芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J].西南农业学报,2001,14(3):56-58
[59]詹儒林,李伟,郑服丛.芒果炭疽病菌对多茵灵的抗药性[J].植物保护学报,2005,32(1):71-76.
[60]詹儒林,郑服丛.芒果炭疽病菌β－微管蛋白基因的克隆及其与多菌灵抗药性发生的关系[J].微生物学报,2004,44:(6)827-829
[61] Panaccione D G，Mckieman M,Hanau R M.Colletotrichum graminicola transformed with homologousand heterologous benomyl—resistant genes retains expected pathogenicity to corn[J].MolPlantMicrobe Interact,1988,1:l13-120.
[62]杨廷策.芒果炭疽病发生与品种关系的调查[J].广西植保,1998,2:8-9.
[63]柳建良,黄小丹,傅炽栋,等.水杨酸对芒果炭疽病的诱导抗性作用[J].热带亚热带植物学报,1998,6(3):245-248
[64]晏卫红,黄思良,谢玲,等.芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J].西南农业大学学报,2001,14(3):56-58.
[65]李锐,赵家华,郑服丛,等.25％咪鲜胺·多菌灵可湿性粉剂防治芒果炭疽病试验[J].热带农业科学,2004,24(2):1-3.
[66]杨胜远,陈桂光,肖功年,等.芒果主要病原菌拮抗微生物的分离筛选[J].植物保护,2004,30(3):55-58
[67]钟秋平,夏文水.壳聚糖对芒果炭疽菌、蒂腐菌的拮抗作用[J].科技开发,2005,21(1):25-27.
[68]杨公正,陈永强,肖倩莼,等.无公害生物农药低聚糖素防治芒果炭疽病试验[J].华南热带农业大学学报.2004,10(1):7-9.
[69]骆焱平,郑服丛,杨叶.128种南药植物提取物对6种病原菌的生长抑制作用[J].热带作物学报2004,25(4):106-111.
[70]曾青,强胜.胶孢炭疽菌婆婆纳专化型及其侵染过程[J].植物保护学报,2001,28(3):279-284.
[71]张天宇.胶孢炭疽菌菟丝子专化型[J].真菌学报,1985,4(4):234-239.
[72]黄泽余,周志权.广西红树林炭疽病研究[J].广西科学，1997，4（4）：319-324.
[73] Perfect S E, Hughes H B, O’Connell R J, Green J R.. Colletotrichum: A model genus for studies onpathology and fungal-plant interactions[J]. Fungal Genetics and Biology,1999,27:186-198.
[74]张敬泽,胡东维,徐同.柿树炭疽菌侵染寄主的细胞学研究[J].菌物系统,2003,22(4):645-652.
[75]张敬泽,徐同,何黎平.浙江无核柿炭疽病菌鉴定及附着胞形成过程中的核相变化[J].菌物学报,2005,24(3):446-456.
[76]赖纯高,代庆阳,苏学辉.柑桔病叶片中叶绿体的超微结构[J].四川师范学院学报,1998,19(3):304-306.
[77]朱建华.不同油茶物种抗炭疽病的组织病理学初步研究[J].福建林学院学报l980,9(4):35-35.
[78]王忠肃,华世珍,欧阳秩.柑桔炭疽病(Colletotrichum gloeosporioides)潜伏侵染带菌部位研究[J].西南农业大学学报,1991,13(1):96-98.
[79]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的研究Ⅰ[J].四川农业大学学报,1991,9(2):208-210.
[80]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的研究Ⅱ[J].四川农业大学学报,1991,(2):211-214.
[81]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病潜伏带菌的普遍性及侵染动态[J].四川农业大学学报,1990,8(2):147-l51.
[82]张长青.普通油茶对炭疽病抗性的病理学研究[J].林业科学研究,1996,9(4):435-438.
[83] Eckert J.W., Sommer N.F. Control of disease of fruits and vegetables by postharvest treatment[J].Annual Review of Phytopathology,1967,5:391-432.
[84] Verhoeff K.. Latent infections by fungi[M]. Annu Rev Phytopathology,1974,12:99-107.
[85] Agrios G N.. Plant Pathology[M]. New York: Academic Press,1988，803.
[86] Sinclair J B.. Latent infection of soybean plants and seads by fungi[J]. Plant Disease,1991,75(3):220-224.
[87]李传道,周仲铭,鞠国柱.森林病理学通论[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1985，123-125.
[88]曾大鹏,刘开玲,贺正兴,等.杉木炭疽菌的研究.林业科学[J].1981,17(3):250-256.
[89]朱克恭.树木炭疽病[M].森林病虫通讯,1989，(2):37-40.
[90]邓德胜.杉木炭疽菌潜伏侵染研究[J].南京林业大学学报,1988,（1):29-34.
[91] Simmonds J H.. Queensl J Agric Sci,1963,20:373-424.
[92] MansfieId J K.. See Ref[M].1982，273-288.
[93] Ralph L N.. Annu Rev Phytopathol[M].1992,30:369-389.
[94]谢艺贤,刘秀娟,杨业铜,等.香蕉芒果果皮中酶活性与炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的关系[J].真菌学报,1995,14(4):283-288.
[95]胡美姣,刘秀娟,黄圣明.热处理芒果、香蕉果皮PAL活性变化与炭疽病发生的关系[J].热带作物学报,2000,21(4):63-67.
[96]方中达,植病研究方法（第三版）[M].中国农业出版社,北京，1998.
[97]胡东维,李振岐，等.小麦白粉菌早期发育与初侵染行为的细胞学研究[J].西北农业大学学报1997,25(1):1-7.
[98]郑国锠，谷祝平.生物显微技术(第二版)[M].高等教育出版社.北京，1993.
[99]Perfect S E, O’Connell R J,Green E F, etc.. Expression cloning of a fungal proline-rich glycoproteinspecific to the biotrophic interface formed in the Colletotrichum bean interaction[J]. Plant J,1998,15:273-279
[100]李洪连,王守正,王金生,等.黄瓜对炭疽病诱导抗性的初步研究Ⅱ [J].植物病理学报,1993,23(4):327-332.
[101]朱广廉,钟海文,张爱琴.植物生理学实验[M].北京大学出版社,北京，1990.
[102]章骏德.植物生理学实验法[M].江西人民出版社,1982.
[103]薛应龙.植物生理学实验[M].高等教育出版社，北京，1985.
[104]薛应龙,欧阳光察,澳绍根.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究[J]植物生理学报,1983,9(3):301-305.
[105]张志良,吴光耀.植物生物化学技术和方法[M].农业出版社,1986.
[106]霍秀娟.芒果炭疽病菌[Colletrichum gloessporioides (Penz.)Sacc.]生物学及其生理分化研究[D].广西大学硕士学位论文,2000.
[107]张中义,冷怀琼,张志铭.植物病原真菌学[M].四川:科学技术出版社,1986，395-398.
[2]俞章,任国兰,田尧甫,等.几个炭疽菌株的分类鉴定[J].河南农业大学学报,1996,30(2):149-153.
[3]刘仲健.中国兰花观赏与培育及病虫害防治[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1998,250-294.
[4] Jeffries P, Dodd J C, Jeger M J, et al. The biology and control of Colletotrichum species on tropicalfruit crops[J]. Plant Pathology,1990,39:343-366.
[5]戴芳澜.中国真菌总汇[M].北京:科学出版社,1979.1-1529.
[6]张中义.植物病原真菌学[M].成都.四川科技出版社出版.1988,1-517.
[7]杨秀珠.台湾产炭疽菌引致植物炭疽病[D].北海道农业大学农学博士论文.1990,1-90.
[8]蔡云鹏.台湾植物病害名录[M].台湾:中华植物保护学会,中华植物保护学会刊印,1991:1-604.
[9]王也珍,吴声华,周文能,等.台湾真菌名录[M].农业委员会,1999:1-289.
[10]曹文广,刘云龙,张中义.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum部分种的分类研究.云南农业大学硕士论文.2006,1-77.
[11] von Arx J A. Die Arten der Gattung Colletotrichum Corda[J]. Phytopath1957,29:413-468.
[12] von Arx J A. A review of the fungi classified as genus Gloeosporium[J]. Bibliotheca Mycologica,1970,24(3):1-203.
[13] Sutton B C. Fungi Imperfecti with pycnicia, acervuli and stromata[M]. Surrey, England:Commonwealth Mycological Institute.The Coelomycetes.1980:523-537.
[14] Sutton B C. The genus Glomerella and its anamorph Colletotrichum[J]. In: Colletotrichum biology,pathology and control. Eds. Bailey, J. A. and M. J. Jeger. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.1992:1-26.
[15] Kirk P M, Cannon P F, David J C, et al. Dictionary of the Fungi,2001.
[16]王晓鸣,李建义.陕西省炭疽菌的研究[J].真菌学报,1987,6(6):211-218.
[17]吴文平,张志铭.河北省的炭疽菌属[D].河北农业大学硕士论文,1988:1-141.
[18]喻璋.河南省炭疽菌（Colletotrichum Corda.）分类的研究[J].喻璋论文集,2002.
[19]刘晓云,景耀,杨俊秀.植物炭疽研究文献综述[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(4):105-111.
[20]邢来君,李明春.普通真菌学[M].高等教育出版社.1999,270-271.
[21]曾大兴.炭疽菌属几个重要种的分子系统学研究[M].植物病理学报.2002,22（4）:372-373.
[22]曾大兴,戚佩坤,姜子德.2002.应用RAPD技术快速鉴定蔬菜上的弯抱类炭疽菌[J].植物病理学报.32(2):170-174.
[23]张欣.胶胞炭疽菌DNA的PCR特异性扩增[J].热带农业科学.2002,22(2):17-20.
[24] Correll. J.C, D.D.Rhoads, and J.C.Guerber1993. Examination of Mitochondrial DNA RestrictionFragment Length Polymorphism, DNA Fingerprints,and Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA ofColletotrichum orbiculare[J].PHYTOPATHOLOGY.83(11),1199-1204.
[25] Walker. J, A. Nikandrow and G. D. Millar1991. Species of Colletotrichum on Xanthium(Asteraceae) with comments on some taxonomic and nomenclatural problems in Colletotrichum[J],Mycol. Res.95(10):1175-1193.
[26]曹文广,刘云龙,张中义,等.炭疽菌属Colletotrichum Corda的分类研究进展[C].中国食用菌2005,第24卷增刊.118-122.
[27] SIVANESAN. A AND W. H. HSIEH. A new ascomycete,Glomerella septospora sp. nov.and itscoelomycete anamorph, Colletotrichum taiwanense sp. nov. from Taiwan[J]. Mycol. Res.1993,97(12):1523-1529.
[28] Sutton B C. The coelomycetes [M]. CML., Kew. Surrey,1980,523-537.
[29] Simmonds, J. H. A Study of the species of Colletotrichum Causing Ripe Fruit Rots in Queensland[J].Queesland J. aric. Anim. Sci.1965,22:458-459.
[30]王晓鸣,李建义.炭疽菌属的现代分类和陕西省炭疽菌属的种[D].西北农学院硕士论文.1985,1-283.
[31]熊英,梁红艳,余浩光,等.马占相思炭疽菌的鉴定和有关生物学特性的研究[J].中国森林病虫.2003,22(1):5-9.
[32]兰建强,李亮,曾显雄,等.炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种-III中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011,120-122.
[33]曲倩，兰建强,张陶,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）一新组合，一新记录种西南大学学报.2010，32卷增刊115-116
[34]兰建强,曲倩,张陶,等.炭疽菌属一新种中国植物病理学会2010年学术年会论文集2010，137-138
[35]曲倩,兰建强,张陶,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）的分类研究中国植物病理学会2010年学术年会论文集2010，178-181
[36]张陶,张荣,兰建强,等.中国炭疽菌属（Colletotrichum）的分类研究III云南大学学报(自然科学版).2008，28（3）76-80
[37]弓力伟，兰建强,曾显雄,等.盘长孢属Gloeosporium二新种-III中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，102-103
[38]杨海艳，秦芸，张宏,等.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种-I中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，136-137
[39]罗群，曾显雄,张中义,等.盘长孢属Gloeosporium二新种-II中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，108-109
[40]张中义，杨海艳，郑肖兰,等.我国炭疽菌属Colletotrichum二新种中国植物病理学会2011年学术年会论文集2011，138-139
[41]黄循精,张慧坚.世界芒果的生产、科研及贸易[J].热带作物研究,1995,(1):81-86.
[42]蔡於麒,何和明.芒果生产过程中若干生理参数的变化[J].中国野生植物资源,2000,19(5):56-5.
[43]周至宏,王助引,黄思良,等.香蕉、菠萝、忙果病虫害防治彩色图说[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[44]肖倩纯,余卓桐,郑建华,等.芒果病害种类及其病原菌鉴定[J].热带作物学报,1995,6(1):77-83.
[45]王壁生,丁爱冬,刘朝祯,等.芒果炭疽病防治试验初报[J].广东农业科学,1993,(2):38-41.
[46]冯双庆,陈雨新,吴海宗,等.延缓果实后熟和控制采后病害的发生[J].北京农业大学学报,1997,(4):61.
[47]戴芳澜.中国真菌总汇[M].北京:科技出版社,1979,1-1527.
[48]王小鸣.炭疽菌属(Colletotrichum Cda)的现代分类学和陕西省炭疽属的种[D].西北农学院硕士论文,1985.
[49]黄思良,霍秀娟,韦刚,等.芒果炭疽病菌Colletotrichum gloeosporioides的生物学特性[J].西南农业学报,1999,12(2):83-89.
[50]黄思良,赵艳珠,黄连江,等.不同培养基对芒果炭疽病菌分生孢子形成的影响[J].西南农业学报,1998,11(1):62-68.
[51]岑贞陆,黄思良.芒果炭疽病菌微循环产孢的研究[J].2000,7(3):225-227.
[52]张敬泽,徐同.柿树炭疽菌侵染不同柿树种、品种和部位的细胞学特征[J].菌物学报,2005,24(1):116-122.
[53]肖倩莼,余卓桐.芒果炭疽病流行过程、流行成因分析及施药指标预报研究[J].热带作物学报,1999,20(3):25-30.
[50]蒲金基,王向社,梁活华,等.芒果叶片生化特性与炭疽病发生的关系[J].果树学报，2004,21(5):434-437
[55]蒲金基,刘晓妹,梁活华.芒果叶片对炭疽病的阶段抗性[J].植物保护学报,2004,31(3):247-251.
[56]张宗申,彭新湘,姜子德,等.生物诱抗剂草酸对黄瓜叶片中过氧化物酶的系统诱导作用[J].植物病理学报,1998,28(1):145-150.
[57]柳建良,黄小丹,傅炽栋,等.水杨酸对芒果炭疽病的诱导抗性作用[J].热带亚热带植物学报,1998,6(3):245-248.
[58]晏卫红,黄思良,谢玲,等.芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J].西南农业学报,2001,14(3):56-58
[59]詹儒林,李伟,郑服丛.芒果炭疽病菌对多茵灵的抗药性[J].植物保护学报,2005,32(1):71-76.
[60]詹儒林,郑服丛.芒果炭疽病菌β－微管蛋白基因的克隆及其与多菌灵抗药性发生的关系[J].微生物学报,2004,44:(6)827-829
[61] Panaccione D G，Mckieman M,Hanau R M.Colletotrichum graminicola transformed with homologousand heterologous benomyl—resistant genes retains expected pathogenicity to corn[J].MolPlantMicrobe Interact,1988,1:l13-120.
[62]杨廷策.芒果炭疽病发生与品种关系的调查[J].广西植保,1998,2:8-9.
[63]柳建良,黄小丹,傅炽栋,等.水杨酸对芒果炭疽病的诱导抗性作用[J].热带亚热带植物学报,1998,6(3):245-248
[64]晏卫红,黄思良,谢玲,等.芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J].西南农业大学学报,2001,14(3):56-58.
[65]李锐,赵家华,郑服丛,等.25％咪鲜胺·多菌灵可湿性粉剂防治芒果炭疽病试验[J].热带农业科学,2004,24(2):1-3.
[66]杨胜远,陈桂光,肖功年,等.芒果主要病原菌拮抗微生物的分离筛选[J].植物保护,2004,30(3):55-58
[67]钟秋平,夏文水.壳聚糖对芒果炭疽菌、蒂腐菌的拮抗作用[J].科技开发,2005,21(1):25-27.
[68]杨公正,陈永强,肖倩莼,等.无公害生物农药低聚糖素防治芒果炭疽病试验[J].华南热带农业大学学报.2004,10(1):7-9.
[69]骆焱平,郑服丛,杨叶.128种南药植物提取物对6种病原菌的生长抑制作用[J].热带作物学报2004,25(4):106-111.
[70]曾青,强胜.胶孢炭疽菌婆婆纳专化型及其侵染过程[J].植物保护学报,2001,28(3):279-284.
[71]张天宇.胶孢炭疽菌菟丝子专化型[J].真菌学报,1985,4(4):234-239.
[72]黄泽余,周志权.广西红树林炭疽病研究[J].广西科学，1997，4（4）：319-324.
[73] Perfect S E, Hughes H B, O’Connell R J, Green J R.. Colletotrichum: A model genus for studies onpathology and fungal-plant interactions[J]. Fungal Genetics and Biology,1999,27:186-198.
[74]张敬泽,胡东维,徐同.柿树炭疽菌侵染寄主的细胞学研究[J].菌物系统,2003,22(4):645-652.
[75]张敬泽,徐同,何黎平.浙江无核柿炭疽病菌鉴定及附着胞形成过程中的核相变化[J].菌物学报,2005,24(3):446-456.
[76]赖纯高,代庆阳,苏学辉.柑桔病叶片中叶绿体的超微结构[J].四川师范学院学报,1998,19(3):304-306.
[77]朱建华.不同油茶物种抗炭疽病的组织病理学初步研究[J].福建林学院学报l980,9(4):35-35.
[78]王忠肃,华世珍,欧阳秩.柑桔炭疽病(Colletotrichum gloeosporioides)潜伏侵染带菌部位研究[J].西南农业大学学报,1991,13(1):96-98.
[79]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的研究Ⅰ[J].四川农业大学学报,1991,9(2):208-210.
[80]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的研究Ⅱ[J].四川农业大学学报,1991,(2):211-214.
[81]王卫芳,冷怀琼.柑桔炭疽病潜伏带菌的普遍性及侵染动态[J].四川农业大学学报,1990,8(2):147-l51.
[82]张长青.普通油茶对炭疽病抗性的病理学研究[J].林业科学研究,1996,9(4):435-438.
[83] Eckert J.W., Sommer N.F. Control of disease of fruits and vegetables by postharvest treatment[J].Annual Review of Phytopathology,1967,5:391-432.
[84] Verhoeff K.. Latent infections by fungi[M]. Annu Rev Phytopathology,1974,12:99-107.
[85] Agrios G N.. Plant Pathology[M]. New York: Academic Press,1988，803.
[86] Sinclair J B.. Latent infection of soybean plants and seads by fungi[J]. Plant Disease,1991,75(3):220-224.
[87]李传道,周仲铭,鞠国柱.森林病理学通论[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1985，123-125.
[88]曾大鹏,刘开玲,贺正兴,等.杉木炭疽菌的研究.林业科学[J].1981,17(3):250-256.
[89]朱克恭.树木炭疽病[M].森林病虫通讯,1989，(2):37-40.
[90]邓德胜.杉木炭疽菌潜伏侵染研究[J].南京林业大学学报,1988,（1):29-34.
[91] Simmonds J H.. Queensl J Agric Sci,1963,20:373-424.
[92] MansfieId J K.. See Ref[M].1982，273-288.
[93] Ralph L N.. Annu Rev Phytopathol[M].1992,30:369-389.
[94]谢艺贤,刘秀娟,杨业铜,等.香蕉芒果果皮中酶活性与炭疽病菌潜伏侵染的关系[J].真菌学报,1995,14(4):283-288.
[95]胡美姣,刘秀娟,黄圣明.热处理芒果、香蕉果皮PAL活性变化与炭疽病发生的关系[J].热带作物学报,2000,21(4):63-67.
[96]方中达,植病研究方法（第三版）[M].中国农业出版社,北京，1998.
[97]胡东维,李振岐，等.小麦白粉菌早期发育与初侵染行为的细胞学研究[J].西北农业大学学报1997,25(1):1-7.
[98]郑国锠，谷祝平.生物显微技术(第二版)[M].高等教育出版社.北京，1993.
[99]Perfect S E, O’Connell R J,Green E F, etc.. Expression cloning of a fungal proline-rich glycoproteinspecific to the biotrophic interface formed in the Colletotrichum bean interaction[J]. Plant J,1998,15:273-279
[100]李洪连,王守正,王金生,等.黄瓜对炭疽病诱导抗性的初步研究Ⅱ [J].植物病理学报,1993,23(4):327-332.
[101]朱广廉,钟海文,张爱琴.植物生理学实验[M].北京大学出版社,北京，1990.
[102]章骏德.植物生理学实验法[M].江西人民出版社,1982.
[103]薛应龙.植物生理学实验[M].高等教育出版社，北京，1985.
[104]薛应龙,欧阳光察,澳绍根.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究[J]植物生理学报,1983,9(3):301-305.
[105]张志良,吴光耀.植物生物化学技术和方法[M].农业出版社,1986.
[106]霍秀娟.芒果炭疽病菌[Colletrichum gloessporioides (Penz.)Sacc.]生物学及其生理分化研究[D].广西大学硕士学位论文,2000.
[107]张中义,冷怀琼,张志铭.植物病原真菌学[M].四川:科学技术出版社,1986，395-398.